Syria and Enforcing International Norms

Noah Millman makes an excellent point about Syria and enforcing international norms:

You can’t enforce an “international norm” on your own recognizances. There has to be some kind of internationally recognized process, and some kind of authorization. That is what puts the “collective” in collective security. Since the creation of the United Nations, the only legitimate justification for the unilateral use of force is self-defense. Nobody alleges that a strike against Syria is an act in self-defense.

That’s right, which is why what strikes the U.S. and its allies launch against Syrian forces in the next few days will be contrary to international law. Now most Americans and even some American liberal internationalists probably don’t care about this, but it is a fairly significant flaw in the claim that the forthcoming missile strikes have something to do with enforcing international norms and creating a “rules-based order.” Indeed, it sinks the only argument for this particular attack.

Millman goes on to say that “an attack would be an open declaration that the United States arrogates to itself the right to determine what the law is, who has violated it, what punishment they deserve, and to take whatever action is necessary to see it carried out.” He doesn’t think this is compatible with liberal internationalism, and maybe he’s right about that. Unfortunately, it is very compatible with the way that the U.S. has treated international law when it comes to matters of proliferation and violations of other states’ sovereignty. International law matters greatly to Washington when it is a bludgeon to be used against other states, and it seems that it is something to be ignored more or less completely when it is an obstacle to bludgeoning other states.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 13 comments

13 Responses to Syria and Enforcing International Norms

Not to mention that Syria is not even a signatory to the treaty banning the use of chemical weapons, so enforcing the treaty against Syria doesn’t make a lot of sense. I guess we should look forward to the U.S. attacking Israel for possessing nuclear weapons contrary to the anti-proliferation treaty, to which Israel is not a signatory.

“Millman goes on to say that “an attack would be an open declaration that the United States President arrogates to itselfhimself the right to determine what the law is, who has violated it, what punishment they deserve, and to take whatever action is necessary to see it carried out.”

The Imperial Presidency is running amok, enabled by a feckless impotent Congress and a compliant, parasitic MSM in bed with the Leviathan.

Our blatant use of torture is an obvious example of where we don’t care about abuse of international law when we feel it is needed. Would we thought it justifiable if Syria (or Japan, Russia, UK, France, etc.) attacked us for violating international law and customs on torture. It is especially relevant here when we haven’t signed certain anti-torture treaties, much as Syria didn’t sign the ban on chemical weapons.

I am not opposed necessarily to attacking Syria to punish chemical weapon use, but Americans do need to think through the context of what they are saying when they say we are justified in doing so because that same justification would have allowed others to attack us for our “enhanced interrogations”.

Millman goes on to say that “an attack would be an open declaration that the United States arrogates to itself the right to determine what the law is, who has violated it, what punishment they deserve, and to take whatever action is necessary to see it carried out.”

SteveM says, “The Imperial Presidency is running amok, enabled by a feckless impotent Congress and a compliant, parasitic MSM in bed with the Leviathan.”

I don’t think this can be fairly blamed on the “Imperial Presidency” (although there’s plenty that can). Remember, Obama has been pressured by McCain and other Congressional militarists for a very long time to attack Syria. He tried to fob them off with concessions but now he’s given way and allowed the war hawks in his administration (many of them recent appointees, concessions to McCain and those of his ilk) to have their way. He tries to SOUND like he’s shaping the policy — of course, no president wants to confess that he’s been pushed around by others — but the impetus for war is coming from elsewhere.

Cliff I see what you are saying but my point is the huge asymmetry in Constitutional roles and responsibilities related to war making.

Regardless of how much or how little Obama wants to wage war with Syria, he believes he has almost opened ended authority to do so. And McCain and other war-hawks are not the Senate and the House.

If McCain wants war, have him advocate for Congress to convene, let both Houses debate the issue in open fora and then issue a joint declaration one way or the other. Just like the Constitution says they should.

Lyle, we may already be past the time that anyone with a garage can build a drone. Heck, not only does Minnesota have a drone company for commercial use, the state is seeking federal dollars to be a drone test site (but not for defense purposes!!). Extrapolate the consequences of eventual know-how to, say, the residents of Abyan province in Yemen. Or the Chinese government. Or your neighbor with a garage.

“If McCain wants war, have him advocate for Congress to convene, let both Houses debate the issue in open fora and then issue a joint declaration one way or the other. Just like the Constitution says they should.”

Is there any solid evidence at all backing up this line of “evil John McCain is forcing poor innocent Obama to intervene in Syria” or is this just a rationalization being passed out in an attempt to justify the President’s actions to dumbfounded Democrat partisans?

Offhand, I can’t think of many other examples where McCain and Obama were opposing sides of some issue where Obama just knuckled under to McCain’s “pressure.” Even if it were true (which of course it’s not – practically the entire mainstream center-left/Democrat foreign policy apparatus wants an attack on Syria now – there’s really nothing to explain at this point), it doesn’t speak well of Obama’s abilities as President that he would meekly wilt in the face of criticism from a small coterie of mostly powerless opposition Senators.

In any case, I suppose it’s a sign of trouble when even the best plausible excuses available reflect poorly on you…

I more or less agree but the problem is “we’ve got the men, we’ve got the guns, we’ve got the money too”. (Of course, we have to borrow the money…) It’s just too easy for the president, any president, to start shooting.

Matthew Yglesias in the column linked under “of note” (one of my favorite parts of TAC’s web page) asks “whether, as a matter of policy, it makes sense to preserve sufficient military excess capacity to undertake helping-by-killing expeditions or should we try to have a military sized appropriately for a national defense mission.” Suppose we chose the second option. Then if a president wanted to start a fight, he WOULD have to go to Congress, just as Charles I had to go to Parliament, to get the money.